1. Eviction of an employee from premises under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Dispute over tenancy rights and jurisdiction for interim relief. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 138
1996(2) SUPREME 526
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi and K.Venkataswami, JJ.
Life Insurance Corporation of India -Appellant
versus
Shiva Prasad Tripathi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2244 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9623 of 1995)
Decided on 18-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
The Court s power to adjudicate on the question whether a person was a tenant or not, in no way, has been taken away by Section 10 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The adjudication, however, would be declaratory in nature and may sequally end up in a consequence. Nothing interim, however, is obtainable.
Headnote:Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971-Sections 7 and 10-Eviction order under Section 7 passed against retired employee of LIC-Upheld by appellate authority-Suit for injunction barred under Section 10-Writ filed to High Court for directions-High Court gave directions conferring jurisdiction on the Small (Causes Court, Bombay, prima facie, it is debarred to have, for issuance of an injunction or ad-interim injunction notwithstanding Section 10 s bar-Whether correct ? (No) (Para 6)-Appeal allowed-W.P. dismissed with six months time to vacate, two months time to appellant to pay employee retiral dues and consideration of rent/damages or waiver thereof sympathetically. (Paras 7 & 9)
Held : We regret to say that the orders of the High Court are benefit of any reasoning in giving a complete go-by to the bar erected under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 had not to be viewed in isolation but had to be understood in the context of the other provisions of the Act standing in support thereof. Clearly, a suit for injunction to negate the orders of those two authorities stood barred under Section 10. The legislative mandate was that the court by order cannot obstruct the execution of the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the appellate authority. The court s power, otherwise, to adjudicate on the question whether a person was a tenant or not, in no way, has been taken away by Section 10. The adjudication however would be declaratory in nature and may sequally end up in a consequence. Nothing interim however is obtainable. We therefore do not agree with the High Court that whatever stood achieved by the appellant under the Act, would suffer deprival just because the plea of the respondent being a tenant is debatable in the court. We. therefore, upset the impugned order of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent before the High Court. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Whether a court can grant interim injunctions to protect possession while adjudicating tenancy rights despite the bar under Section 10 of the Public Premises Act. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Section 10 bars suits for injunction to negate orders of the Estate Officer; while tenancy can be adjudicated declaratorily, no interim relief is obtainable. (Para 6 )
4. Section 10 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, prohibits courts from granting injunctions to obstruct the execution of eviction orders. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Respondent granted six months to vacate and direction to clear retiral dues. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. Does Section 10 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, bar the grant of injunctions?
Yes, Section 10 prohibits any court or authority from granting an injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of powers conferred under the Act, effectively barring suits for injunction to negate orders of the Estate Officer or appellate officer. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. Can a person still challenge their status as a tenant in court despite the bar under Section 10 of the Act?
Yes, the court's power to adjudicate whether a person is a tenant is not taken away by Section 10; however, such adjudication would be declaratory in nature and cannot result in interim relief or injunctions. (Para 6 )
8. Can a court suspend the execution of an eviction order passed by an Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act?
No, the legislative mandate under Section 10 ensures that the court cannot by order obstruct the execution of orders passed by the Estate Officer and the appellate authority. (Para 6 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 21-2-1995 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 276 of 1995 whereunder certain directions have been made towards conferral of jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court, Bombay which, prima facie, it is debarred to have.
3. The respondent-Shiva Prasad Tripathi- was an employee of the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India and on that basis was allotted the premises owned and possessed by it. On expiry of the tenure of his service, the respondent was required to vacate the premises. When he refused to do so, the Estate Officer of the Corporation was brought into action in issuing a notice to the respondent to show cause why appropriate orders under Section 7 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short the Act ) be not passed against him. The cause shown by the respondent did not appeal to the Estate Officer and thus an order of eviction was passed. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal by the respondent before City Civil Court at Bombay. The plea of the respondent before the appellate court that he was a tenant in the disputed premises, having security of tenure, was not entertained and the matter was was left at large.
4. The respondent then moved the High Court in Writ Jurisdiction so as to challenge the orders of the Estate Officer as also that of the appellate authority.Though the respondent could not demolish the grounds for eviction in the High Court, he clung to the plea of despair that if he were to enter the Small Causes Court to establish his tenancy rights, his possession in the interregnums would not be protected by the Small Causes Court due to Section 10 of the Act, which reads as follows :
"10. Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, every order made by an estate officer or appellate officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act.
5. The respondent was given a lee-way by the High Court on taking the view that the question of tenancy pertains to property, which plea was adjudicable before a court or a competent authority, and the court or authority could issue an injunction or an interim direction, and no bar could be erected to stop it towards the grant thereof. It is in these circumstances that the High Court directed that the Judge, Small Causes Court, shall adjudicate on the question of tenancy when raised by the respondent in the suit and such court, in that event, would be able to issue any interim order or injunction which the respondent may be found entitled to. In addition to that the High Court also ordered that the impugned orders of the Estate Officer and the appellate authority would remain suspended till the decision of the application for an interim relief was filed before the Court of Small Causes. This has raised the instant challenge.
6. We regret to say that the orders of the High Court are benefit of any reasoning in giving a complete go-by to the bar erected under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 had not to be viewed in isolation but had to be understood in the context of the other provisions of the Act standing in support thereof. Clearly, a suit for injunction to negate the orders of those two authorities stood barred under Section 10. The legislative mandate was that the court by order cannot obstruct the execution of the orders passed by the Estate Officer and the appellate authority. The court s power, otherwise, to adjudicate on the question whether a person was a tenant or not, in no way, has been taken away by Section 10. The adjudication however would be declaratory in nature and may sequally end up in a consequence. Nothing interim however is obtainable.
